Paul were you raised by WW2 propaganda officers?
Leaving aside all the other nonsense in your post you should know that the British and Americans at all times maintained superiority over Germany in technology and intelligence capacity. By the end of the war Germany was developing prototypes of technology comparable to what was being developed in the West but for the whole of the war Germans fought with inferior weapons and machinery, relied mostly on horse drawn transport and railways and never developed the advanced tactics in which the allied soldiers were drilled.
By your logic and the way you calculate the lasting impact of statesmen Stalin or Mao would definitely have to be placed above Hitler for you to maintain any credibility.

Jay
Just to answer your post, which is not on the topic. Please explain how from June 5th 1940 the day after Dunkirk, to December 11th 1941 when Germany declared war on the United States, a period of some 18 months. Please explain how Britain was as you say "maintaining superiority over Germany". Why, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour did Churchill jump up and down exclaiming "We've won, we've won." before Pearl Harbour did Churchill possibly think Britain was staring defeat in the face.
You also said "Germans fought with inferior weapons and machinery" Please tell me which allied tank other than possibly the Russian T34 was superior to the German Tiger tanks, particularly when they were fitted with 88mm guns. The mainstay of the US was the M4 Sherman also called the "Ronson lighter" as it burst into flames easily. It usually required 5 Sherman's to knock out 1 Tiger tank. The British had the "Tommy cooker"
Jay, which allied rocket was superior to the German's V2? Who's talking nonsense "(Germany) relied mostly on horse drawn transport" really Jay, next thing you know, you'll be telling us the Germans were using bows and arrows as their number 1 weapon. I respect my father and uncles and what they did in WWII, they all said the Germans and the Japanese were a mighty enemy and no push over.

Paul while I agree with you about the Tiger tank, & the 88 as antiaircraft & tank guns, the Germans were still using a great deal of horse transport. They never did build a decent truck, & just imagine what the outcome might have been if they had had a decent bomber.

If they had had a Lancaster equivalent, It could easily have gone the other way. The rockets they had were really only an anti moral weapon at that time.

Just out of curiosity.

How did a discussion on "Person of the Twentieth Century" degenerate into an argument about who had the better trucks in 1940?

That Stevenlmeyer, is one of the things I love about OLO, the threads develop a life of their own.

I suppose it would be annoying if you have a pedantic mind, but if a topic grows branches, I find it much more interesting.

Hasbeen, not that you and I agree often but your comments are spot on. In some things the Germans were brilliant, in others they were crap. Once the Russians turned thing around at Stalingrad and the Yanks got their war production into top gear, the Germans were gone. Material wise, and resource wise, the Germans couldn't match it with the allies. Having said that, they were no push over. if it had been left to the Brits alone they would have gone down, Churchill knew that.
I appreciate Belly's views on Gandhi and Mandela and both were important figures within their own spheres. Probably Gandhi more so than Mandela.
Jay's, Stalin and Mao did exert a very big influence over world events. I don't think either had a "plan" for world domination as Hitler did. If they did they never went to the extreme of trying to implement it. Stalin can't even be held responsible for the Cold War, he didn't even give Moe much of a helping hand in China in 1949. Other than China's involvement in Korea and a bit of support for the Vietnamese Moe did little to spread communism in Asia. I think both Stalin and Moe were much more preoccupied with internal matters than taking on the West, which the did genuinely fear.